multicast.com - score another one for jberryhill!

[Dave Zan]

Dr. Berryhill has added another feather to his cap:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/434268.htm

And to make it even sweeter, he asked and later got a reverse domain hijack
ruling against the complainant.

Congratulations!

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

Nicely done! arty:

 

[GT Web]

wow, that's awesome Mr. Berryhill

see, who says all lawyers are evil :-D

 

[DomainEngineer]

Nice work....congrats!!!

 

[PapaStiz]

Fantastic job! Wow!

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Thanks all.

But that was yesterday. This is today:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/430650.htm

 

[Ovicide]

But that was yesterday. This is today:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/430650.htm

Congratulations for both decisions.

Maybe I need to read the decision more closely, but I don't understand this:

...we believe the Complainant came close, but failed, to prove the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Fluke's trademark registration is for "digital multimeters".

"meterman" seems as generic/descriptive as "books" or "cars".

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

we believe the Complainant came close, but failed, to prove the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

It is something of a puzzle, isn't it? There's really not much difference in the fact patterns for both cases, but one receives an RDNH, and the other is "close". It is all a matter of what panelists are assigned.